dejuror wrote:This forum was not intiated for assumptions. Please identify the manuscripts, the Papyri, the Codex, that you believe Silas wrote?
We will wait for your answer.

Free wrote:You can wait for it, but you won't get it.

I have reviewed your posts on this forum, and it's clear to me that you are really not interested in this discussion. Your favorite topic is disputing the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth by holding a total myth position. Judging by your posts, you are biased insomuch as to derail the object of this discussion.

Again, I will not discuss this topic with you.

What?? You won't identify the manuscripts, Papyri, or Codex that you believe Silas wrote!!!

It was expected.

Judging from your posts you are attempting to derail your own thread. I will not allow you to do so.

Now, when we exam writings of antiquity it is in "Against Heresies" attributed to the supposed Irenaeus c 180 CE that we first hear of a Gospel according to Luke and Acts of the Apostles.

However, when one examines "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen it would appear that Celsus in "True Discourcse" composed c 175 CE knew nothing of and did not acknowledge any Gospel according to Luke or any event found in Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus.

In fact, multiple supposed 2nd century or later Christian writings do not contain any accounts of the Apostles as stated in Acts.

If we go through gLuke and Acts verse by verse we will see that they are not historically credible.

The abundance of evidence from antiquity suggest that the existing versions of gLuke and Acts were not written by Silas if it is assumed Silas lived in the 1st century.

Free wrote:


So I will now briefly summarize my points on this.

Point 1: The 1st person narrative is only ever utilized when Silas is with Paul.

Point 2: When Silas is not with Paul, the 1st personal narrative ends until Silas is with Paul again.

Point 3: There is no mention of Luke at all in Acts.

Point 4: Timothy has been eliminated as the 1st person narrator.

Point 5: In many instances where the 1st person narrative is used, we see only Paul and Silas traveling together.

Point 6: Silas is not recorded as being separated from Paul again, and in instances were the actions of Paul alone are described- such as being imprisoned- the 1st person narrative or the word "we" are not used.


Conclusion:

The evidence indicates that the most likely candidate as the author of both the Gospel of Luke & Acts is none other than Silas.

I have cross checked this numerous times, and tried to debunk it and have not been successful.

But I need some of you who are well learned to check out my findings and see if you can either confirm what I have learned, or dispute it.

Either way works for me.

Thanks.

I am certainly no expert on this, but doesn't this conclusion have the same problem that attributing it to Luke has:

From the Wiki on the Gospel of Luke (I know, I know . . . ):

According to a Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself; this view is still sometimes advanced, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters."[5] (An example can be seen by comparing Acts' accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1-31, 22:6-21, and 26:9-23) with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17-24).)[17] He admired Paul, but his theology was significantly different from Paul's on key points and he does not (in Acts) represent Paul's views accurately.[18] He was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more high-brow writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business-people who made up the early church of Paul and were presumably Luke's audience.[19]

Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts to around 80-90 CE, although some suggest 90-110.[20] The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.[5] There is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.[6]

I guess it's possible that your Silas started the works, which would explain the 1st person sections and why the overall work seems disjointed, but aren't your reasons the same given for the reason it was attributed to Luke in the first place?

dejuror wrote:

dejuror wrote:This forum was not intiated for assumptions. Please identify the manuscripts, the Papyri, the Codex, that you believe Silas wrote?
We will wait for your answer.

Free wrote:You can wait for it, but you won't get it.

I have reviewed your posts on this forum, and it's clear to me that you are really not interested in this discussion. Your favorite topic is disputing the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth by holding a total myth position. Judging by your posts, you are biased insomuch as to derail the object of this discussion.

Again, I will not discuss this topic with you.

What?? You won't identify the manuscripts, Papyri, or Codex that you believe Silas wrote!!!

It was expected.

Judging from your posts you are attempting to derail your own thread. I will not allow you to do so.

Now, when we exam writings of antiquity it is in "Against Heresies" attributed to the supposed Irenaeus c 180 CE that we first hear of a Gospel according to Luke and Acts of the Apostles.

However, when one examines "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen it would appear that Celsus in "True Discourcse" composed c 175 CE knew nothing of and did not acknowledge any Gospel according to Luke or any event found in Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus.

In fact, multiple supposed 2nd century or later Christian writings do not contain any accounts of the Apostles as stated in Acts.

If we go through gLuke and Acts verse by verse we will see that they are not historically credible.

The abundance of evidence from antiquity suggest that the existing versions of gLuke and Acts were not written by Silas if it is assumed Silas lived in the 1st century.

It's quite simple.

I am operating on the assumption that what I said previously is factual. I am not willing to discuss the possibility that it isn't factual when we already know that the possibility that it is not factual exists. But that it not the point.

You are clearly looking for an argument to dispute the history. I will not argue that point. Again I am operating under the assumption, not under any facts.

So if you want to argue about factuals, you are in the wrong thread.

I am not interested in your mythicist arguments, which is obviously where you are trying to take this.

So once again, for the last time, will you please stop badgering me about it?

NamelessFaceless wrote:

Free wrote:


So I will now briefly summarize my points on this.

Point 1: The 1st person narrative is only ever utilized when Silas is with Paul.

Point 2: When Silas is not with Paul, the 1st personal narrative ends until Silas is with Paul again.

Point 3: There is no mention of Luke at all in Acts.

Point 4: Timothy has been eliminated as the 1st person narrator.

Point 5: In many instances where the 1st person narrative is used, we see only Paul and Silas traveling together.

Point 6: Silas is not recorded as being separated from Paul again, and in instances were the actions of Paul alone are described- such as being imprisoned- the 1st person narrative or the word "we" are not used.


Conclusion:

The evidence indicates that the most likely candidate as the author of both the Gospel of Luke & Acts is none other than Silas.

I have cross checked this numerous times, and tried to debunk it and have not been successful.

But I need some of you who are well learned to check out my findings and see if you can either confirm what I have learned, or dispute it.

Either way works for me.

Thanks.

I am certainly no expert on this, but doesn't this conclusion have the same problem that attributing it to Luke has:

From the Wiki on the Gospel of Luke (I know, I know . . . ):

Actually, all the same problems do exist. However, because of the use of "we" in the Acts being utilized in the 1st person narrative only when Silas is seen in the corresponding scenes, as well as Luke not being mentioned at all in the gospel of Luke or Acts, I believe it nudges Silas far past Luke as the likely author.

In Paul's letters we see Silas with Paul in areas where Acts also has them both together. The name "Silas" is the Greek variation of the Latin "Silvanus." I am under the impression that Silvanus is also the likely author of 1st & 2nd Thessalonians, but while being supervised and dictated to by Paul.

The reason for this view is that we also see Silvanus being utilized as the writer of 1st Peter as illustrated in 1Pe 5:12.

Free wrote:

It's quite simple.

I am operating on the assumption that what I said previously is factual. I am not willing to discuss the possibility that it isn't factual when we already know that the possibility that it is not factual exists. But that it not the point.

You are clearly looking for an argument to dispute the history. I will not argue that point. Again I am operating under the assumption, not under any facts.

So if you want to argue about factuals, you are in the wrong thread.

I am not interested in your mythicist arguments, which is obviously where you are trying to take this.

So once again, for the last time, will you please stop badgering me about it?

You have now admitted that you are OPERATING on ASSUMPTIONS.

I have already told you that this forum was not initiated for assumptions.

Please, stop attempting to derail your own thread with strawman fallacies.

I am dealing directly and specifically with your statements in this thread.

This is an excerpt from your own post in this very thread.
'

Free wrote:The evidence indicates that the most likely candidate as the author of both the Gospel of Luke & Acts is none other than Silas.

I have cross checked this numerous times, and tried to debunk it and have not been successful.

Again, you MUST identify the version of gLuke and Acts which you conclude was most likely written by Silas.

Your conclusion is easily debunked because:

1. You don't even know when gLuke and Acts were originally composed.

2. You don't know if Paul and Silas were figures of history.

3. gLuke and Acts of the Apostles are not historically credible.

4. Up to the end or last quarter of the 2nd century multiple apologetic writers were not aware of Acts of the Apostles and a Gospel according to Luke.

5. The earliest manuscripts with gLuke are dated to probably around c 175-225 CE.

6. The earliest manuscripts of Acts are dated no earlier than the 3rd century.

7. The earliest direct references to gLuke and Acts of the Apostles are in the last quarter of the 2nd century in "Against Heresies" c180 CE.

8. Since at least the 4th century, multiple Skeptics of antiquity have declared that Paul was a liar.

9. Since at least the 4th century, it was known that Paul was unknown in non-apologetic contemporary writings.

10. Paul and Silas are unknown outside the Bible and apologetics until the 3rd or 4th century.

There is no actual evidence that gLuke and Acts were composed in the 1st century and no contemporary corroboration of Paul and Silas at that time.

Your conclusion is based on assumptions not evidence.

Your assumptions are really worthless which render your conclusion as baseless [without facts].

dejuror wrote:

Free wrote:

It's quite simple.

I am operating on the assumption that what I said previously is factual. I am not willing to discuss the possibility that it isn't factual when we already know that the possibility that it is not factual exists. But that it not the point.

You are clearly looking for an argument to dispute the history. I will not argue that point. Again I am operating under the assumption, not under any facts.

So if you want to argue about factuals, you are in the wrong thread.

I am not interested in your mythicist arguments, which is obviously where you are trying to take this.

So once again, for the last time, will you please stop badgering me about it?

You have now admitted that you are OPERATING on ASSUMPTIONS.

I have already told you that this forum was not initiated for assumptions.

Please, stop attempting to derail your own thread with strawman fallacies.

I am dealing directly and specifically with your statements in this thread.

This is an excerpt from your own post in this very thread.
'

Free wrote:The evidence indicates that the most likely candidate as the author of both the Gospel of Luke & Acts is none other than Silas.

I have cross checked this numerous times, and tried to debunk it and have not been successful.

Again, you MUST identify the version of gLuke and Acts which you conclude was most likely written by Silas.

Your conclusion is easily debunked because:

1. You don't even know when gLuke and Acts were originally composed.

2. You don't know if Paul and Silas were figures of history.

3. gLuke and Acts of the Apostles are not historically credible.

4. Up to the end or last quarter of the 2nd century multiple apologetic writers were not aware of Acts of the Apostles and a Gospel according to Luke.

5. The earliest manuscripts with gLuke are dated to probably around c 175-225 CE.

6. The earliest manuscripts of Acts are dated no earlier than the 3rd century.

7. The earliest direct references to gLuke and Acts of the Apostles are in the last quarter of the 2nd century in "Against Heresies" c180 CE.

8. Since at least the 4th century, multiple Skeptics of antiquity have declared that Paul was a liar.

9. Since at least the 4th century, it was known that Paul was unknown in non-apologetic contemporary writings.

10. Paul and Silas are unknown outside the Bible and apologetics until the 3rd or 4th century.

There is no actual evidence that gLuke and Acts were composed in the 1st century and no contemporary corroboration of Paul and Silas at that time.

Your conclusion is based on assumptions not evidence.

Your assumptions are really worthless which render your conclusion as baseless [without facts].

Okay, great.

Carry on with whatever you are trying to say. I won't respond to anything, I promise you. In fact, i don't even read it. The floor is all yours.

dejuror wrote:

Again, you MUST identify the version of gLuke and Acts which you conclude was most likely written by Silas.

Your conclusion is easily debunked because:

1. You don't even know when gLuke and Acts were originally composed.

2. You don't know if Paul and Silas were figures of history.

3. gLuke and Acts of the Apostles are not historically credible.

4. Up to the end or last quarter of the 2nd century multiple apologetic writers were not aware of Acts of the Apostles and a Gospel according to Luke.

5. The earliest manuscripts with gLuke are dated to probably around c 175-225 CE.

6. The earliest manuscripts of Acts are dated no earlier than the 3rd century.

7. The earliest direct references to gLuke and Acts of the Apostles are in the last quarter of the 2nd century in "Against Heresies" c180 CE.

8. Since at least the 4th century, multiple Skeptics of antiquity have declared that Paul was a liar.

9. Since at least the 4th century, it was known that Paul was unknown in non-apologetic contemporary writings.

10. Paul and Silas are unknown outside the Bible and apologetics until the 3rd or 4th century.

There is no actual evidence that gLuke and Acts were composed in the 1st century and no contemporary corroboration of Paul and Silas at that time.

Your conclusion is based on assumptions not evidence.

Your assumptions are really worthless which render your conclusion as baseless [without facts].

Free wrote:Okay, great.

Carry on with whatever you are trying to say. I won't respond to anything, I promise you. In fact, i don't even read it. The floor is all yours.

This is now about the third time you say you won't respond to my posts but do the very opposite.

You should have first found evidence from antiquity for Paul and Silas before you jumped to conclusions based on admitted assumptions.

Based on research in writings of antiquity it would appear that Acts of the Apostles was a very late composition and the author was unknown up to at least the 4th century.

Examine Homilies on Acts attributed to Chrysostom.

http://newadvent.org/fathers/210101.htm

Homilies on Acts 1

To many persons this Book is so little known, both it and its author, that they are not even aware that there is such a book in existence. For this reason especially I have taken this narrative for my subject, that I may draw to it such as do not know it, and not let such a treasure as this remain hidden out of sight.

The evidence from antiquity adds up.

Acts of the Apostles is a late writing and was unknown by even Christians of antiquity up to the 4th century.

People of antiquity did not even know that there was a book called Acts of the Apostles.

Please, identify which manuscript of Acts of the Apostles was written by the supposed Silas?

dejuror wrote:

dejuror wrote:

Again, you MUST identify the version of gLuke and Acts which you conclude was most likely written by Silas.

Your conclusion is easily debunked because:

1. You don't even know when gLuke and Acts were originally composed.

2. You don't know if Paul and Silas were figures of history.

3. gLuke and Acts of the Apostles are not historically credible.

4. Up to the end or last quarter of the 2nd century multiple apologetic writers were not aware of Acts of the Apostles and a Gospel according to Luke.

5. The earliest manuscripts with gLuke are dated to probably around c 175-225 CE.

6. The earliest manuscripts of Acts are dated no earlier than the 3rd century.

7. The earliest direct references to gLuke and Acts of the Apostles are in the last quarter of the 2nd century in "Against Heresies" c180 CE.

8. Since at least the 4th century, multiple Skeptics of antiquity have declared that Paul was a liar.

9. Since at least the 4th century, it was known that Paul was unknown in non-apologetic contemporary writings.

10. Paul and Silas are unknown outside the Bible and apologetics until the 3rd or 4th century.

There is no actual evidence that gLuke and Acts were composed in the 1st century and no contemporary corroboration of Paul and Silas at that time.

Your conclusion is based on assumptions not evidence.

Your assumptions are really worthless which render your conclusion as baseless [without facts].

Free wrote:Okay, great.

Carry on with whatever you are trying to say. I won't respond to anything, I promise you. In fact, i don't even read it. The floor is all yours.

This is now about the third time you say you won't respond to my posts but do the very opposite.

You should have first found evidence from antiquity for Paul and Silas before you jumped to conclusions based on admitted assumptions.

Based on research in writings of antiquity it would appear that Acts of the Apostles was a very late composition and the author was unknown up to at least the 4th century.

Examine Homilies on Acts attributed to Chrysostom.

http://newadvent.org/fathers/210101.htm

Homilies on Acts 1

To many persons this Book is so little known, both it and its author, that they are not even aware that there is such a book in existence. For this reason especially I have taken this narrative for my subject, that I may draw to it such as do not know it, and not let such a treasure as this remain hidden out of sight.

The evidence from antiquity adds up.

Acts of the Apostles is a late writing and was unknown by even Christians of antiquity up to the 4th century.

People of antiquity did not even know that there was a book called Acts of the Apostles.

Please, identify which manuscript of Acts of the Apostles which was written by the supposed Silas?

Whatever you say dude.

Carry on.



But just for anyone else, however. Irenaeus recited from Acts 54 times, and calls it by name "Acts of the Apostles," attributes it to Luke, and does all this around AD 175.

Irenaeus - Against Heresies - Book III

Just saying ...

Free wrote:...But just for anyone else, however. Irenaeus recited from Acts 54 times, and calls it by name "Acts of the Apostles," attributes it to Luke, and does all this around AD 175.

Irenaeus - Against Heresies - Book III

Just saying ...

This is for you. Who in antiquity claimed Silas wrote gLuke and Acts of the Apostles? Please, identify the manuscripts, the Papyri, the Codex which you believe Silas wrote?

By the way, your claim that Silas most likely wrote Acts only suggests that Acts is not credible.

dejuror wrote:

Free wrote:...But just for anyone else, however. Irenaeus recited from Acts 54 times, and calls it by name "Acts of the Apostles," attributes it to Luke, and does all this around AD 175.

Irenaeus - Against Heresies - Book III

Just saying ...

This is for you. Who in antiquity claimed Silas wrote gLuke and Acts of the Apostles? Please, identify the manuscripts, the Papyri, the Codex which you believe Silas wrote?

By the way, your claim that Silas most likely wrote Acts only suggests that Acts is not credible.

You still here?

Let me ask you something. In my opening post, what part of "I need some of you who are well learned to check out my findings and see if you can either confirm what I have learned, or dispute it" did you so miserably fail to understand?

Are you one of "those internet guys" who goes from thread to thread, all rabidly angry and shit, and just look for an argument for the sake of arguing? And do you really believe that people like me could ever take people who are like you seriously?

Take your time.

dejuror wrote:

This is for you. Who in antiquity claimed Silas wrote gLuke and Acts of the Apostles? Please, identify the manuscripts, the Papyri, the Codex which you believe Silas wrote?

By the way, your claim that Silas most likely wrote Acts only suggests that Acts is not credible.

Free wrote:You still here?

Let me ask you something. In my opening post, what part of "I need some of you who are well learned to check out my findings and see if you can either confirm what I have learned, or dispute it" did you so miserably fail to understand?

Are you one of "those internet guys" who goes from thread to thread, all rabidly angry and shit, and just look for an argument for the sake of arguing? And do you really believe that people like me could ever take people who are like you seriously?

Take your time.

You are trying real hard to derail your own thread with your "rabidly angry and shit" questions.

Please, get back on topic.

Your conclusion has already been easily debunked.

You admitted that your conclusion is based on ASSUMPTIONS.

At any level, scholar or not, it is well established that an hypothesis requires credible data--NOT assumptions.

You have utterly failed to show which versions of gLuke and Acts were most likely composed by Silas, have failed to show that gLuke and Acts are credible historical accounts and have failed to show that Paul and Silas were actual figures of history.

Now, when we examine Acts of the Apostles it is clear that we are not dealing with historical accounts but pure fiction and myth.

There is virtually nothing in Acts about the Apostles, including Paul and Silas, that is corroborated in any non-apologetic contemporary sources.

Your argument using the Bible as an historical source for Paul and Silas WITHOUT corroboration is the very worse type of argument.

There is zero evidence in antiquity that Silas wrote gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.

dejuror wrote:

dejuror wrote:

This is for you. Who in antiquity claimed Silas wrote gLuke and Acts of the Apostles? Please, identify the manuscripts, the Papyri, the Codex which you believe Silas wrote?

By the way, your claim that Silas most likely wrote Acts only suggests that Acts is not credible.

Free wrote:You still here?

Let me ask you something. In my opening post, what part of "I need some of you who are well learned to check out my findings and see if you can either confirm what I have learned, or dispute it" did you so miserably fail to understand?

Are you one of "those internet guys" who goes from thread to thread, all rabidly angry and shit, and just look for an argument for the sake of arguing? And do you really believe that people like me could ever take people who are like you seriously?

Take your time.

You are trying real hard to derail your own thread with your "rabidly angry and shit" questions.

Please, get back on topic.

Your conclusion has already been easily debunked.

You admitted that your conclusion is based on ASSUMPTIONS.

At any level, scholar or not, it is well established that an hypothesis requires credible data--NOT assumptions.

You have utterly failed to show which versions of gLuke and Acts were most likely composed by Silas, have failed to show that gLuke and Acts are credible historical accounts and have failed to show that Paul and Silas were actual figures of history.

Now, when we examine Acts of the Apostles it is clear that we are not dealing with historical accounts but pure fiction and myth.

There is virtually nothing in Acts about the Apostles, including Paul and Silas, that is corroborated in any non-apologetic contemporary sources.

Your argument using the Bible as an historical source for Paul and Silas WITHOUT corroboration is the very worse type of argument.

There is zero evidence in antiquity that Silas wrote gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.

Yet, here you are, still missing the point of this thread.

Amazing.

Unfortunately for you, your reputation here precedes you, and in addition I have been advised that discussing anything with you will only result in feeble and very unscholarly results from you.

And from what I have observed, I must agree with that assessment. Therefore, until you can learn to present yourself with a far higher degree of professionalism, and actually understand the nature of topics such as this one, there really isn't anything I am willing to discuss with you on this subject.

Since you will undoubtedly again fail to respect my request to stop derailing this topic- which expressly requests for knowledgeable people to confirm or dispute the specific findings outlined in my OP- any and all posts you make will now go completely without a reply.

In effect, you have been ignored.

Are not the we passages a well discussed point? Isn't it a symptom of a literary genre?

Alternatively Vernon Robbins (1978) regards the "we" passages a Greek rhetorical device used for sea voyages

Someone mention Homer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_Luke–Acts

Clive Durdle wrote:Are not the we passages a well discussed point? Isn't it a symptom of a literary genre?

Alternatively Vernon Robbins (1978) regards the "we" passages a Greek rhetorical device used for sea voyages

Someone mention Homer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_Luke–Acts

I have found this bit of information as part of a footnote on Wikipedia:

"Of the two latest full-length studies on the "we" passages, for example, one argues that the first-person accounts came from Silas, a companion of Paul but not the author, and the other proposes that first-person narration was Luke's method of communicating his participation in the events narrated."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship ... te_note-25

So my hypothesis seems to be finding support in scholarly circles. I will see what I can find out about that discussion and compare.

dejuror wrote:

You are trying real hard to derail your own thread with your "rabidly angry and shit" questions.

Please, get back on topic.

Your conclusion has already been easily debunked.

You admitted that your conclusion is based on ASSUMPTIONS.

At any level, scholar or not, it is well established that an hypothesis requires credible data--NOT assumptions.

You have utterly failed to show which versions of gLuke and Acts were most likely composed by Silas, have failed to show that gLuke and Acts are credible historical accounts and have failed to show that Paul and Silas were actual figures of history.

Now, when we examine Acts of the Apostles it is clear that we are not dealing with historical accounts but pure fiction and myth.

There is virtually nothing in Acts about the Apostles, including Paul and Silas, that is corroborated in any non-apologetic contemporary sources.

Your argument using the Bible as an historical source for Paul and Silas WITHOUT corroboration is the very worse type of argument.

There is zero evidence in antiquity that Silas wrote gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.

Free wrote:Yet, here you are, still missing the point of this thread.

Amazing.

Unfortunately for you, your reputation here precedes you, and in addition I have been advised that discussing anything with you will only result in feeble and very unscholarly results from you.

This forum was set up for everybody. Your present hypothesis in this thread is feeble and unscholarly.

I have been advised that you have no evidence from antiquity that Silas wrote gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.

I have been advised that you don't even know which versions of gLuke and Acts of the Apostles could have been written by Silas.

I have been advised that you have no evidence from antiquity that gLuke and Acts of the Apostles are historically credible.

Free wrote:
And from what I have observed, I must agree with that assessment. Therefore, until you can learn to present yourself with a far higher degree of professionalism, and actually understand the nature of topics such as this one, there really isn't anything I am willing to discuss with you on this subject.

What I have observed based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity is that your conclusion that Silas most likely wrote gLuke and Acts of the Apostles is baseless [without any actual contemporary evidence from antiquity].

I will definitely show in this thread that your conclusion is baseless [without evidence from antiquity] whether or not you discuss anything with me.

Free wrote:Since you will undoubtedly again fail to respect my request to stop derailing this topic- which expressly requests for knowledgeable people to confirm or dispute the specific findings outlined in my OP- any and all posts you make will now go completely without a reply.

Your statement is a well established fallacy. You are the one who have attempted multiple times to derail your own thread.

You continue to respond to my post yet state publicly that you will not do so.

Free wrote:In effect, you have been ignored.

You mis-represent yourself. You are actively responding to my posts.

I am obligated to expose your logically fallacious argument so it is virtually impossible for me to ignore your unevidenced assumption based conclusion using manuscripts from the 2nd century or later.

Again, please identify the manuscripts of gLuke and Acts of the Apostles that you believe were most likely written by Silas?

You cannot do so.

Free wrote:This may not be of interest to many of you, but being the kind of person I am I simply needed to investigate this issue to figure out what the truth actually is. So the question that many NT Scholars ask is:

Who Was The Author Of Luke & Acts?

No one seems to know for sure who wrote those two NT books, and they have always been erroneously attributed to Luke. But there has never been any kind of decent evidence at all to support Luke as being the author.

Westar Institute's Acts and Christian Beginnings: the Acts Seminar Report may help.